Adultery dating website provides free publicity for Newt Gingrich

posted at 2:45 pm on December 21, 2011 by Tina Korbe

It’s disturbing enough that the website AshleyMadison.com exists. It’s an online dating site — for married people looking to cheat on their spouses. The Ashley Madison motto? “Life is short. Have an affair.”

It’s even more disturbing that the site’s founder sees in Newt Gingrich’s recent rise a sign of the destigmatization of adultery — and has opted to give the former Speaker free publicity. In Pennsylvania, Ashley Madison posted a massive billboard that features a prominent picture of Gingrich with this text across it: “Faithful Republican … Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the AshleyMadison.com era.”

“Now that Newt is the leading contender in the race for the GOP nomination, we felt compelled to make a point to illustrate how times have changed when a serial divorcee/adulterer is capturing the hearts of the American people,” site founder Noel Biderman said in a statement on Friday.

“Gingrich proves that marital fidelity has no bearing on someone’s ability to do a job,” Biderman continued. “Rather than judge him, Americans have finally embraced the reality that affairs are commonplace, and perhaps paradoxically, might be an indication of great leadership to come. He is not the first nor last politician who will step outside of their marriage.”

What’s frustrating is that Biderman is free to interpret Gingrich’s preeminence in the polls however he likes. I’d argue it’s certainly not because the former Speaker has had affairs — it’s been in spite of that. Biderman’s position tempts me to contort myself into an uncomfortable defensive posture, in which I take the Rick Perry line. But I don’t really want to do that. Yes, it makes sense that a person who would cheat on his spouse might also be liable to cheat on a business partner, as Perry has put it. But it also makes sense that mistakes in your personal life don’t necessarily mean you’ll perform poorly in your professional life. The oft-repeated maxim “We all make mistakes” also rings true here. The question then becomes: Do we take responsibility for them or do we seek to justify them? With Gingrich, it seems to be a little bit of both.

Anyway, to forgive or overlook someone’s failures is very different than to celebrate and glorify someone’s failures, as Ashley Madison has done. I would not wish to remove the consequences of poor decisions for anybody — and, perhaps, one of the consequences Gingrich will yet have to reap from his impetuous personal life is the loss of the 2012 GOP nomination. Perhaps not. Either way, it doesn’t change that — to put it in the most simplistic terms possible — adultery is wrong, and Gingrich himself thinks that.

Biderman is free to interpret Gingrich’s preeminence in the polls however he likes.

But he’s not free to use a person’s image – even a publicly prominent person’s – for commercial purposes such as advertising without that person’s consent. That’s called invasion of privacy, and it’s a tort that people who practice it can be sued for.

In light of his recent support of Dede Scozzafava in 2009, I’m not so certain we can.

Murf76 on December 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM

That is the zinger with Newt for me too. Was he attempting to play the establishment game ala the inside party support for Arlen Spector and Lincoln Chafee and go with who he thought could fill the seat or did he get burned by doing so and feels comfortable bucking the party elites? Either way, the party elites sound pretty much like the Kos kids when they discuss Newt and that is telling.

I don’t recall Krauthammer ever calling Obama a socialist like he did Newt.

It’s not about punishing an adulterer for his sins. It’s about not being able to trust what he tells you.

Cheaters lie. That’s what they do. They lie to their spouses, their children, their families, and even themselves. It becomes a question of credibility in the face of a candidate’s obvious willingness to take short-cuts.

Now, Newt may well have put infidelity behind him. Certainly there are no recent allegations to the contrary. But can we safely say that he’s put aside the character defect which chooses expediency and allows the behavior? In light of his recent support of Dede Scozzafava in 2009, I’m not so certain we can.

Murf76 on December 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Can’t disagree. The problem is whether he has the will to overcome the “character defect” and make being honest his focus. It is possible that he could have reformed himself as he says and works hard to achieve that.

That’s something we don’t really know for sure and each person has to decide whether to believe he has as he has said or whether they feel it’s something that isn’t achievable/that he is capable of achieving.

Cheaters lie. That’s what they do. They lie to their spouses, their children, their families, and even themselves. It becomes a question of credibility in the face of a candidate’s obvious willingness to take short-cuts.

Murf76 on December 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM

This is very true. There was a guy I knew who was cheating on his wife (no, not with me). Anyway, besides all the lies he told to others to cover up his behavior, he came up with all sorts of strange rationalizations that any normal person would realize didn’t excuse the behavior. As you said, he was even telling himself lies. He probably lied more in one week than I have in my entire life. How can you trust someone like that?

The shoe fits him so he has to wear it.
He’s not only a repeat adulterer – the current wife #3 had an affair with him for SIX YEARS while he was married to wife #2. He’s an arrogant snake and if he can’t keep his marriage vows – he WON’T KEEP HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES EITHER.

I have always said that someone who cheats on their spouse shows selfishness. They are willing to devastate their wife and kids for a moment of selfish pleasure.

Newt has since found God and repented (supposedly, but I have no reason to doubt that.) I definitely think that he was selfish when he was Speaker, but his goal was to make a name for himself as reshaping congress, welfare, etc.

I have tried to find an easy way to determine the good guys from the bad guys. A serial cheater is not a good guy, but he can still do a decent job. A career politician is not a good guy but he can still do a decent job. An arrogant man can still do a decent job. The only attribute I have found that works 100% of the time is you know the guy will do a rotten job and screw everything up if he is a LIBERAL!

. I prefer to f**k the woman I married, as opposed to Newt, who likes to marry the women he f**ks.

MadisonConservative on December 21, 2011 at 3:10 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Agree 1000000% Mad Con………….but looking at him lately!….I think….I, I think he may have difficulty finding it…letting alone…using it! I think he sits down a lot…I don’t think the urinal, is an option for him anymore! (:>)

No, it’s about forgiveness, for He also told us to forgive those who trespass against that. I read that in a prayer, and a few other places.

Kraken on December 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I have no problem forgiving Newt, but as this sign that inspired this blog post shows, the result of his becoming the nominee will be to normalize that behavior and further weaken society in the same way that Clinton started. That is not punishing Newt, because no one is entitled to be the nominee.

And despite all of the valid questions about his integrity, morals, etc – I would still vote for Gingrich in a second to replace Obama. I’m not entirely thrilled about any of the Rep candidates, but in the end run I will vote for anyone against Obama.

That is the zinger with Newt for me too. Was he attempting to play the establishment game ala the inside party support for Arlen Spector and Lincoln Chafee and go with who he thought could fill the seat or did he get burned by doing so and feels comfortable bucking the party elites? Either way, the party elites sound pretty much like the Kos kids when they discuss Newt and that is telling.

I don’t recall Krauthammer ever calling Obama a socialist like he did Newt.

DanMan on December 21, 2011 at 3:52 PM

I dunno. I think it’s possible that the “establishment Republicans” could genuinely be worried that Newt will implode in the general. He’s a smart guy. But he’s also somewhat impetuous as we see in even some of his recent choices, like NY-23.

Everybody lies, including people who spout off about ‘integrity’ like MadCon.

Saying, ‘Well at least I don’t cheat on my wife’ doesn’t automatically make you some kind of paragon of virtue. It’s like saying, ‘Well, at least I didn’t kill no-one today’.

Jeez. Mixture of low expectations and pompous posturing is heavy with some today.

CorporatePiggy on December 21, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Yes, everybody lies, but there are lies like “No, you don’t look fat”, and then there are lies like “Sorry, honey, I have to stay late at the office again” when you are really out banging the secretary. Not everybody does the more serious kind.

Can’t disagree. The problem is whether he has the will to overcome the “character defect” and make being honest his focus. It is possible that he could have reformed himself as he says and works hard to achieve that.

That’s something we don’t really know for sure and each person has to decide whether to believe he has as he has said or whether they feel it’s something that isn’t achievable/that he is capable of achieving.

kim roy on December 21, 2011 at 3:54 PM

In Newt’s favor, he’s had no hint of scandal in his personal life since his last marriage ended. But I can’t say that I wouldn’t be a whole lot more comfortable with him if he hadn’t made the expedient choice in NY-23. That bugs me, because I’m left wondering if the same willingness to compromise on integrity for the sake of a particular goal might still exist.

Remember my Christian friends if we lust in our heart or just think about it .We are just as guilty as Newt.Newt says he ask for forgiveness and if he did we must accept that God forgave him.This does not mean we will forget what he did and we can choose to vote for or against him.Based on this or other things Newt has said or done.

You may be right to a point, but then again, you could be generalizing the Newt effect. Personally, it won’t have any affect on my future activities in the are of adultery, not will it make what he’s done any better in my viewpoint.

Full disclosure: as a human being, I’ve committed the act many times in my my mind, if not my body, over 37 years of marriage. I’m not trying to normalize it in any way by admitting that. I think what Newt did was wrong, but then I think what I did was also wrong in the eyes of God. Which one of us had offended God the most? I think we’re both equally sinners regardless of my not consummating the act. Am I any more trust worthy because I stayed with my wife all these years?

Like I said before, there are many reasons not to like Newt. I would prefer he not get the nomination. But when it comes to him verses Obama, what do we do?

Yes, everybody lies, but there are lies like “No, you don’t look fat”, and then there are lies like “Sorry, honey, I have to stay late at the office again” when you are really out banging the secretary. Not everybody does the more serious kind.

McDuck on December 21, 2011 at 4:07 PM

it gets worse: there are lies like “I have to stay at the office again” when you are really out banging the entire United States of America by creating ObamaCare or Stimulus.

Obamacare is the equivalent of banging everyone in the country and then making them pay you for it.

easy piglet, I said it because not saying so would lead half this new bunch to assume I had cheated because I’m not rejecting Newt for it. Pocketbook issues and all that is where I’m at.

We eliminate a lot of good candidates because of the purity standard. And a lot of good candidates don’t even consider trying to run because of it. Ask Mitch Daniels. I want a fire breathing raging bull to unwind the work of the fire breathing raging bull that is currently in the WH. Newt passed the entire Contract with America in his first 100 days with Clinton and a dem senate to boot. That’s the record I like to recall.

This is very true. There was a guy I knew who was cheating on his wife (no, not with me). Anyway, besides all the lies he told to others to cover up his behavior, he came up with all sorts of strange rationalizations that any normal person would realize didn’t excuse the behavior. As you said, he was even telling himself lies. He probably lied more in one week than I have in my entire life. How can you trust someone like that?

McDuck on December 21, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I like to believe that every person is capable of redemption. My question in Newt’s case would be, has he dealt with not just the cheating, but the character flaw which made such an expedient choice possible for him? Does he still take short-cuts? And unfortunately, I’m not seeing the evidence that he doesn’t.

Same here. Like when Dick Armey was leading the charge on the Clinton / Lewinsky deal, and a reporter asked what he would be doing if he was in Clionton’s shoes. His answer – “looking up from a pool of blood while my wife asks how do I reload this thing…” My redhead wife said – darn right – but she knows how to reload…..

Absoutlely, and that is the problem with ‘purity’ tests. If one is a conservative it is intellectually dishonest to treat the purity test as an a la carte menu where you pick and choose which principles it applies to.

If you applied it strictly, none of the candidates would pass muster at all. If you can’t trust a seemingly reformed adulterer, then you cannot trust a seemingly reformed big government liberal who now claims to be a conservative.

We didn’t invent hypocrisy in this country, but we elevated it into a particularly gruesome form of art.

The problem is that the GOP claims to be the family values party. Now, I personally think the party should get out of that business, but for the moment, that’s what the party is partially about. Newt’s past conflicts with that message.

But he’s not free to use a person’s image – even a publicly prominent person’s – for commercial purposes such as advertising without that person’s consent. That’s called invasion of privacy, and it’s a tort that people who practice it can be sued for.

bgoldman on December 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM

The problem with that idea, beside Newt’s cheating being very public, is that if he sues for defamation or use of his likeness in this PR campaign, is that he will simply and for all eternity bring focus to the issue, and thereby nuke every possible chance to win the nomination.
Now if it’s important to him personally, then the best thing to do is sue after the campaign…

Some things like cheating are NEVER going to be mainstream in a civil society, maybe in an ancient or barbarian culture where survival of the species was imperative or lawlessness/incivility ruled, but NOT IN TODAY’S WORLD.

Gingrich is not necessarily the “best” candidate for the WH, but despite all his shortcomings, he’s still better than Obama. But then, I don’t think any of the people best qualified to actually do the job of President are in the running, or are even willing to attempt running – they’re too smart to do that to themselves and their families, and/or they’re too successful in whatever they’re currently doing.

Newton better win the nomination cause power and prestige is all he has to offer any future mistresses. He doesn’t really cut a very suave figure given his growing corpulence and constantly disheveled look.

In short, monogamy is a fine option, but so is non-monogamy — without which our species, and our beloved children, would not be here.

Random on December 21, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Well, my kids are certainly here, and via a monogamous relationship. Your comment seems a bit silly. Are you seriously suggesting that but for ‘non-monogamy’ the human species would be extinct? Fewer of us, certainly – but ‘not be here’?

There is no forgiveness and redemption without confession. Gingrich supported the socialist mortgage scheme that caused the housing bubble and the near collapse of the banking system. When he was caught he lied to the nation and claimed that he was paid as a historian rather than as a lobbyist and influence peddler. When further pressed on the issue he compared his destructive activities to Romney, the job-creating capitalist.

He can’t distinguish between GSE debacles and capitalism. It’s the same defect as the current occupant of the White House.

Gingrich needs to tell the truth about his affair with Freddie Mac. Even if he did, however, it would still mean that his judgement is inadequate for the job he seeks.

Do you place any value on ‘values’? And if so, who do you support as a candidate, and by their very humanity and the mistakes they’ve made, aren’t you casting yourself as a despicable hypocrite for supporting them?

You’re confusing two totally different things. In defamation lawsuits, the truth or falsity of the published statement is a key issue. But with invasion of privacy,; the only issue is whether someone did or did not use a person’s image for commercial purposes without permission.

That doesn’t mean that Gingrich should sue the website for invasion of privacy, just that if he did, the truth or falsity of their claims would be irrelevant.

He probably shouldn’t sue because (1) it turns a molehill into a mountain and (2) he’d also need to prove a cash value of damages suffered.

The main point of my post was that the website owner was not acting legally. Adultery isn’t a crime, and in most jurisdictions no one can take you to court for it (except divorce court in non-no fault states.

My M.O. is choosing the candidate most likely to defeat Obama, and nothing else. I think issues like Newt’s infidelity are would hound him the entire race, in addition to everything else the media might throw at him. No candidate is without baggage, but I view this PA billboard as a warning of what’s to come from the media (not to mention late night comedy) if we nominate Newt.

No. I prefer to f**k the woman I married, as opposed to Newt, who likes to marry the women he f**ks.

The problem is that the GOP claims to be the family values party. Now, I personally think the party should get out of that business, but for the moment, that’s what the party is partially about. Newt’s past conflicts with that message.

McDuck on December 21, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Publicly ask any Democrat politician if it’s okay to cheat on their spouse and I will guarantee you that they will say, “no”. They will insist it’s wrong. And it is.

So, then, how does this make a Republican guilty of adultery any more deserving of scorn?

I think issues like Newt’s infidelity are would hound him the entire race, in addition to everything else the media might throw at him.

The media will throw everything they have at anyone but a liberal democrat as Obama has shown.

The deal is Liberty 5-3001, what credibility will they have and to who? Libs that would never vote for a GOP candidate will eat it up. And conservatives that don’t have an ax to grind won’t care So are they going to play to the middle? with any credibility after Clinton, Edwards, Jackson and on and on?

If adultery isn’t illegal, then how is using a very public image of the same illegal? Adultery them not being illegal – nor “considered” harmful to ones image – how can using that same highly public image be illegal?

It is no more illegal to use a very public adultery image for PR than it is using Bill Clinton’s line: “It depends on what the word is, is..” for promoting oral sex, as a non-sexual act.

If a very public self-admitted cheater/adulterer’s image does not hold him back from success, then how is using it for PR a lie, defamation, invasion of privacy, and if so how can Newt claim any monetary damages?

How is this guy able to put a picture of Newt up on a billboard without Newt’s approval? Is this kind of thing protected by freedom of speech?

A lot the anti-Newt moralists think this kind of thing is funny but I don’t see how this guy can advertise his website using Newt’s image while also impllying Newt agrees with the message of the website.

If adultery isn’t illegal, then how is using a very public image of the same illegal?

You just don’t get it. It wasn’t “an image of adultery.” It was a head shot of Gingrich, and in case you don’t realize it, the two are not the same.

There’s nothing legally wrong with showing “an image of adultery” as long as the adulterers pictured have signed releases allowing you to use their likeness for profit. Gingrich is a confessed adulterer, but he never gave permission for the use of his likeness on the billboard. In case you hadn’t noticed, a closeup likeness of an adulterer is not “an image of adultery.” Using a person’s likeness – even a public figure’s or a criminal’s likeness – without his permission for gain is legally a form of theft. (Technically, the civil version of theft is called “conversion.”)

Clinton’s line was from a public legal procedure, which means he doesn’t own it. But it someone were to use his name or his likeness in an ad or for any other money-making use besides news coverage or educational textbooks, that would also be invasion of privacy.

Unlike public records, you own your name and your likeness, and nobody’s allowed to use either in an ad, an outdoor board, or a radio or television commercial without your permission. The very act of appropriating either for gain is, from a legal standpoint, harm. Truth or falsity of what’s being said next to that likeness doesn’t enter into it.

In the United States today, “invasion of privacy” is a commonly used cause of action in legal pleadings. Modern tort law includes four categories of invasion of privacy:[6]
Intrusion of solitude: physical or electronic intrusion into one’s private quarters.
Public disclosure of private facts: the dissemination of truthful private information which a reasonable person would find objectionable
False light: the publication of facts which place a person in a false light, even though the facts themselves may not be defamatory.Appropriation: the unauthorized use of a person’s name or likeness to obtain some benefits.[emphasis added]

Of course, those are only facts, and you don’t seem to want to be bothered by these because your mind’s made up.

Four more years of teh O would be far more destructive than what any R candidate could accomplish.

NapaConservative on December 21, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I don’t agree with this at all. I think Romney would be just as destructive as Obama, regardless of the “R” after his name. Newt might be just as bad, I have not made up my mind on him yet.

I’d like to get rid of Obama and most of the Democrats in the Senate as badly as most people on this board, but I’m not going to vote for anyone with an R after their name if I don’t believe they actually hold most of the same political values as I do.

That line of thought has gotten the Republican party into the mess it is in today. . . too many political panderers and RINOs.

Good thread tonight. Thoughtful discussion of the options we have. I am not a strong fan of anyone but agree anybody but Odumba. I don’t think Newtie has the self-discipline to go along with his intellect, the election campaign would be all about him. I also don’t think Mitt is a rino or a liberal. To be a republican in Massachusetts takes a special breed; you cannot be an ultra conservative as you won’t get the vote. Ask Scott Brown but then republicans eat their own. We must get together ourselves before we can get the country together and if Mitt’s the man, push him over the goal line with a crushing victory. We can train Mitt and “help him make the right decisions”. LOL

No, everybody does not lie (although as my mother would say, you’ve just established that you do). I would concede that every person has, at one time or another in his life, told a lie, but it is entirely possible to adopt a policy of no lies, ever. I stopped telling even occasional lies (those supposedly for another person’s good) in my early 20s, because lies are controlling–to lie is to deny the other person the power to make an informed choice. I don’t want to control any person except myself. You may choose to disbelieve it, but I think if you decided to try it, you would become convinced that it makes life infinitely easier and is, in fact, much easier than people initially believe.

Okay, educate me: What about public figures, particularly prominent public figures? Is there a different standard for them? I don’t remember what Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt for exactly, but didn’t it have to do with a mock ad that Hustler ran? I do remember what they did was vile, but Flynt won. Was that because it was satire, or because he was a public figure? And what about all the Obama merchandise? He may think it’s great because he’s such a self-absorbed narcissist, but if he didn’t, how would the law look at it?

You know I like Newt’s positions on the economy, immigration, foreign affairs. But he cheated on his wife so I can’t vote for him.

No. What we are thinking is, “You know I dislike Newt’s prior backstabing positions on the economy, immigration, and foreign affairs. AND he cheated on his wife – at least twice that we know of – so I can’t vote for him.”

Someone once said something along the lines of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Well, after a lot of stone throwing on this thread, I’ll just say that if the choice comes down to Obama or Newt, I’ll be forced to vote for Newt the candidate who will most certainly stab me in the back, instead of the one who is stabbing me in the front….

There, FIFY!

And finally, an apropos quote:

“Bigamy is having one wife too many. Monogamy is the same.”
– Oscar Wilde